The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-10-15
AN EXAMINATION OF DIR. CRANES
REPLY.

|
time, but in the interest of clear ideas,
and Of what 1 regard as an exceedingly
important truth which our church can
not afford to deny or ignore, venture
few more observations on the topic of
Gods moral attitude toward sinners, in
answer to DIR. Cranes remarks in THE
UNIvERsALIsT of Oct. l.
In his first article on this subject, he
took the position that 'all the change
possible to God is in the form of his
activity" and that all biblical express
sions which refer to his wrath or indig-
nation, must be interpreted in accord
ance with this dictum. In the brief
article with whicn 1 followed him, !
endeavored to show-and l think with
success-that the. dictum cannot be
maintained, inasInuch as it is not only
quite possible, but quite necessary, that
being of absolute moral righteous
ness, should change no. only the form
of his activity, in some respects his
feelings also, toward mankind, accord
ing to their moral conduct. In his Sec
ond article, he makes an effort to break
the force Of my Argument by asserting
that, even allowing this to be true, the
change which tak# place in Gods feel
ings is ''purely en1otiolal,' and, being
such, is "a very small change"
If, however, we Grant, for the sake of
the argument, what otherwise cannot
be granted, that the change in Gods
feelings is smhll one, it is large
enough, even theni Ito make the doctor's
original position hntenable. The ad-
mission Of any chahge whatever is fatal
to his fundamentai premise. Though,
like Mercutio's weund, it may not be
$50 deep as a wdl, nor so wide as q
church door, it's enough" to let the life
blood out of his THEORY. If God is sus-
eeptible to any change of feeling, much
or little, great or fmall, then it is not
true that ''all tho &ichange possible to
God is in the formzH his activity" and
all conclusions whfh are based on that
assumption fall Though.
AS for the claiin that purely emo
tional change is okse avery small one,
not worthy of not9le It will not bear
examination. The emotional element
is principal parts od's nature, as it
also is of humst as nre, and is the
source of a laret ii not of the
whole, of his Z. Indeed, it is
very Inconsistent i one to affirm, as
DR., Crane does, thai love is the prin-
ciple Of all divine activity" and in the
same article to make light of emotional
changes, as if they were Of no import
ance; for what is love itself but pure
emotion? Is it not the supreme emo
tion ? Purely emotional changes in
mankind, have led to some of the most
practical revolutions, and purely emo
tional change in God may be fraught
with the most tremendous consequences
to the persons toward whom it is di-
rected
Evidently conscious that the admis-
sion Of any change in Gods feelings is
seriously damaging to his theory of the
divine nature, the doctor next proceeds
to question whether we are sure that
these emotional changes belong to God.
Are we sure" he says, "that these
feelings of pleasure and displeasure are
experienced by the divine mind Ara
we sure that there is any feeling in
God that corresponds to anger in mani"
He then argues that we are not sure of
it, because divine wrath, if it exists,
must be a wrath ''brimful of goodness, :"
"of which the average man knows moth
ing" and because, although as between
man and man, sense Of Indignation
may justly arise when there is sufficient
cause, there can be no sufficient cause
for this feeling III God. Sin, he con-
tends, is not such cause, because God
knew that man would sin when he Gre
ated him, and has provided a remedy
for sin, and would no more be justified
in being indignant at the sins of his
children, than human father would be
justified in being indignant at the cry
Of his infant child.
To this argument, answer, in the
frst place, that Gods character should
not be judged by the standard of 1.-The
average man." but by that of the per
feet man. Granting that the indigna-
tion Of the average man is likely to be
somewhat vindictive, there are men
above the average who are quite capa-
BILE of, and familiar with, an indigna-
tion not vindictive, but actually ''brim-
full of goodness" like that of Jesus
Christ toward the hypOcritical Pnari-
sees. And, in the next place, answer
that if sin is not a sufficient cause for
Indignation Oh the part of God, it is not
a sufficient cause for Indignation on the
| part Of man for We also know, as God
/ himself knows, that men were created
liable to sin, and are certain to sin, and
that a remedy for sin has been provided.
We too, then, according to the DOCTORS
reasoning, ought to regard even the
most heinous of sins as nothing worse